Why are we (usually) reasonable?!

[tonyrey]

1. Every reasonable person accepts conclusions based on probability.

1. Probability is not a human invention.

1. Probability describes physical events.

1. The description consists of human symbols.

1. The description is accurate whatever symbols are used.

1. The description is based on understanding events.

1. It is not an accident we can understand events.

1. It is not an accident events can be understood.

1. There is a reason why events are understandable and understood.

1. It is because reality is reasonable - and not absurd!

So far not one of these propositions has been refuted…

 

[tonyrey]

What you’re asking here appears to be a variation on the old creationist chestnut, “What’s the use of half an eye?” Infusing this question, and your comments here, is the assumption that nature has a grand design, a plan, an end goal.

Not strictly accurate. Everyone knows “nature” is not an intelligent being. Your criticism is based on the assumption that “nature” is the **sole **explanation.

But what might this end goal be, exactly? What, precisely, is a “fully operative design”?

The existence of life and rational beings - as opposed to the view that everything is ultimately valueless and purposeless…

Nature doesn’t work like that. Either an organism’s structures and behaviours allow it to survive and pass on its genes, or they don’t - it really is that simple, and natural selection doesn’t take the long view.

It really is simplistic! If your structure and behaviour are solely in order to survive and pass on your genes you’re failing in your functions in some ways and surpassing them in others.

There is no organism living today that is “en route” to success - they already are a success, precisely because they’ve survived and have the chance to pass their genes to the next generation.

Is that the sum total of your ambitions? Is it even one of your ambitions?

As I said, nature doesn’t take the long view - if a structure isn’t immediately successful in allowing an organism to survive and reproduce, then it won’t be passed on to subsequent generations. Everything in nature is a trade-off - we may assume that, since large brains with reasoning power are very costly to run in terms of energy consumption, they must have contributed to our ancestors’ survival and reproduction - maybe just a little more often than they impeded it.

The theory of survival value is falsified by the facts. Organisms with brains have becomes extinct whereas many without brains still exist. Simplicity is the most successful recipe for survival…

That would be enough to tip the balance in favour of large brains in the human species. None of this is indicative of a long-term plan or an ultimate goal.

The size of brains is a hopelessly inadequate and unreasonable explanation of the existence of animals, let alone persons.

 

[tonyrey]

Organisms with brains have becomes extinct whereas many without brains still exist.

I’m not sure what “have becomes” means but I’m sure you know what I mean…

 

[Qoeleth]

Is there a reason or not? Please feel free to answer the question in any way you like (reasonably of course ). My own view is:

1. Every reasonable person accepts conclusions based on probability.
2. Probability is not a human invention.
3. Probability describes physical events.
4. The description consists of human symbols.
5. The description is accurate whatever symbols are used.
6. The description is based on understanding events.
7. It is not an accident we can understand events.
8. It is not an accident events can be understood.
9. There is a reason why events are understandable and understood.
10. It is because reality is reasonable - and not absurd!

An alternative approach- reason governs only language, not ‘things in themselves’. (So-called) ‘Reality’ however is only a mediation (through language/reason) of what actually IS. So, ‘reality’ (i.e. our language/reason meditated/created world) is, by definition, reasonable.

But ‘things in themselves’? Who can possible say if they are reasonable?

Moroever, you are using reason to validate reason. This is circular, and therefore inadmissable in ‘reasonable’ debate…

 

[tonyrey]

An alternative approach- reason governs only language, not ‘things in themselves’. (So-called) ‘Reality’ however is only a mediation (through language/reason) of what actually IS. So, ‘reality’ (i.e. our language/reason meditated/created world) is, by definition, reasonable.

But ‘things in themselves’? Who can possible say if they are reasonable?

Language and logic express truths about reality with arbitrary symbols but that doesn’t mean they are worthless. If you deny the validity of logic you are cutting your own intellectual throat!

Moroever, you are using reason to validate reason. This is circular, and therefore inadmissable in ‘reasonable’ debate…

You are using reason to invalidate reason - thereby undermining your conclusion.

 

[tonyrey]

On this thread there have been echoes of David Hume’s disparaging reference to " this little agitation of the brain which we call thought" as if it is insignificant yet in its absence all his assertions and those of his disciples would be suspect! It is ironic they claim to be reasonable and reach their conclusions with the very power they belittle. Pascal was more realistic:

“Penser fait la grandeur de l’homme.” (Thought makes the greatness of Man).

 

[tonyrey]

On this thread there have been echoes of David Hume’s disparaging reference to " this little agitation of the brain which we call thought" as if it is insignificant yet in its absence all his assertions and those of his disciples would be suspect! It is ironic they claim to be reasonable and reach their conclusions with the very power they belittle. Pascal was more realistic:

“Penser fait la grandeur de l’homme.” (Thought makes the greatness of Man).

Materialists would be in a state of great agitation if they realised the full implications
of dismissing thought as a little agitation!

 

[tonyrey]

What’s more, as I’ve said before, the much-lauded “rationality” of humans is really nothing more (nor less) than the ability to perceive cause-and-effect relationships, and apply this perception in situations where immediate observation is unavailable. It could be said (quite easily) that you read too much into our abilities and are too ready to ascribe “specialness” to humans.

A hopelessly inadequate definition of the power of reason which entails insight, hindsight, foresight, intuition, inspiration, imagination, meditation, contemplation, investigation, abstraction, introspection, generalisation, individuation, extrapolation, combination, elimination, postulation, classification, theorisation, clarification, verification, falsification, investigation, experimentation, dedication, deduction, induction, thesis, antithesis, analysis and synthesis…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Even many of those who do still smoke and drink and take other unwarranted risks.

I think that occurs because people are motivated by multiple goals. It’s not much different than a person that wants to loose weight but is going to have another slice of cake. Another factor is whether long term or short term goals are given more weight to a person. For people with poor impulse control short term goals tend to win out.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The issue is still whether we can control our thoughts - and if so how?

I think “Control” is too strong of a word. “Influence” may be better. Your thoughts may be in part the result of the action of another by direct or indirect interaction, intentionally or unintentionally.

 

[tonyrey]

I think “Control” is too strong of a word. “Influence” may be better. Your thoughts may be in part the result of the action of another by direct or indirect interaction, intentionally or unintentionally.

Obviously most of our thoughts are caused by events, situations and experiences but if they were all out of control we wouldn’t be able to think for ourselves! In fact when people cannot get a thought out of their mind they need psychiatric treatment.

 

[prodigalson2011]

A hopelessly inadequate definition of the power of reason which entails insight, hindsight, foresight, intuition, inspiration, imagination, meditation, contemplation, investigation, abstraction, introspection, generalisation, individuation, extrapolation, combination, elimination, postulation, classification, theorisation, clarification, verification, falsification, investigation, experimentation, dedication, deduction, induction, thesis, antithesis, analysis and synthesis…

x 1000

It is no surprise that such a pitifully reductionist philosophy should produce such a remarkably lacking understanding of human beings.

 

[tonyrey]

x 1000
It is no surprise that such a pitifully reductionist philosophy should produce such a remarkably lacking understanding of human beings.

Indeed. It’s tragic that materialists reject the idea of spiritual development but in practice they don’t regard or treat themselves or others as animals but as** persons**.

 

[tonyrey]

Shakespeare often summed up life succinctly:

What a piece of work is a man, How noble in
Reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving
how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel!
in apprehension how like a god, the beauty of the
world, the paragon of animals.

• Hamlet

Elsewhere he described human folly:

And yet, to say the truth, reason and love keep little company together nowadays.

• A Midsummer Night’s Dream

A remark highly relevant to this thread!

 

[inocente]

Indeed. It’s tragic that materialists reject the idea of spiritual development but in practice they don’t regard or treat themselves or others as animals but as** persons**.

Is it reasonable that your OP says “Please feel free to answer the question in any way you like (reasonably of course )”, and then you tell Sair she has “a hopelessly inadequate definition” and agree with another poster that she has “a pitifully reductionist philosophy” ???

 

[inocente]

1. It is because reality is reasonable - and not absurd!

I have a lot of problems with the argument in the OP, but it’s worth commenting on this point. It doesn’t really make sense to say that reality is reasonable (how can a hill be reasonable?) but imho it’s definitely wrong to say reality is not absurd. Consider:

• It’s absurd that there are a trillion particles in your finger tip and a couple of trillion stars in the visible universe.
• It’s absurd that most people firmly believe they are above average drivers (think about it).
• Shuffle a pack of cards and lay them out face up. Mathematically it is close to certain that no pack of cards will ever be in that exact order ever again. That’s absurd.

Reality is totally absurd, and the more we know, the more absurd it is. For instance, it’s absurd to imagine that angels push the sun across the sky each day, but it’s far more absurd to know that we are on a lump of rock spinning in empty space - that’s a completely ridiculous idea, the only thing going for it is it’s true.

And that gives a useful rule of thumb: reality is always far more absurd that ye olde philosophers dreamed. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[tonyrey]

Is it reasonable that your OP says “Please feel free to answer the question in any way you like (reasonably of course )”, and then you tell Sair she has “a hopelessly inadequate definition” and agree with another poster that she has “a pitifully reductionist philosophy” ???

Her answer is unreasonable because it is hopelessly inadequate as I have explained with ample detail. If you disagree please explain why.

 

[tonyrey]

I have a lot of problems with the argument in the OP, but it’s worth commenting on this point. It doesn’t really make sense to say that reality is reasonable (how can a hill be reasonable?) but imho it’s definitely wrong to say reality is not absurd. Consider:

• It’s absurd that there are a trillion particles in your finger tip and a couple of trillion stars in the visible universe.
• It’s absurd that most people firmly believe they are above average drivers (think about it).
• Shuffle a pack of cards and lay them out face up. Mathematically it is close to certain that no pack of cards will ever be in that exact order ever again. That’s absurd.

Reality is totally absurd, and the more we know, the more absurd it is. For instance, it’s absurd to imagine that angels push the sun across the sky each day, but it’s far more absurd to know that we are on a lump of rock spinning in empty space - that’s a completely ridiculous idea, the only thing going for it is it’s true.

And that gives a useful rule of thumb: reality is always far more absurd that ye olde philosophers dreamed. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

If reality is “totally absurd” how do you explain the success of science?

 

[tonyrey]

I have a lot of problems with the argument in the OP, but it’s worth commenting on this point. It doesn’t really make sense to say that reality is reasonable (how can a hill be reasonable?) but imho it’s definitely wrong to say reality is not absurd.

I have pointed out in this thread:

Reality is reasonable in the sense that it is logically and scientifically explicable.

Obviously that doesn’t mean it is fully explicable but it is by no means “absurd”…

Luther believed:

Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding.

The following views seem more reasonable:

The supreme function of reason is to show man that some things are beyond reason.

• Pascal

Man has received direct from God only one instrument wherewith to know himself and to know his relation to the universe–he has no other–and that instrument is reason.

-Tolstoy

The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.

• Cicero

Faith… must be enforced by reason… when faith becomes blind it dies.

• Gandhi

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The following views seem more reasonable:

On that topic, given imperfect knowledge on a situation and some responses people have made to it how would you compare one response to another to determine which is more reasonable.